answered question
10
Votes
Votes
14
Answers
Answers
M$3.00
Should Wikipedia be your only source for an answer?
I see a lot of users only providing a paragraph quote from wikipedia as answers, should these be considered "Best Answers" or should we encourage users to find more official sources?
tags:
wikipedia
voted interesting: darknessfalls, orange, interzone, cjd, bunnyphuphu, pescina, mattb4rd, gabby7, easyeboy, arjo
answers (14)
Quoting from Wikipedia itself:
Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency; critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable. Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear. Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia. Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations. Co-founder Jimmy Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.
Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency; critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable. Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear. Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia. Many university lecturers discourage students from citing any encyclopedia in academic work, preferring primary sources; some specifically prohibit Wikipedia citations. Co-founder Jimmy Wales stresses that encyclopedias of any type are not usually appropriate as primary sources, and should not be relied upon as authoritative.
source(s):
wikipedia.org
wikipedia.org
| Asker's rating: |
Isn't it ironic that the best answer is a quote from Wikipedia in this case :D
voted helpful: jeffhoard
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia as a source for an answer. Many students cite Wikipedia today. It's just like an encyclopedia, and for many it has replaced the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is pretty much a reliable source to find information, and the latest information. You might want to encourage people to link to Mahalo for sources, as some of the sources can be found on Mahalo. What other "official sources" would you rather answerers use? Would you believe that Encyclopedia Britannica is more official?
tags: mahaloanswers, wikipedia
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however unlike an actual encyclopedia, anybody can edit it. Meaning the only way to trust the information is if it's cited. "Official Source" generally refers to the original source of the information, it can also mean the information comes from somebody with authority on the topic.
For example, if somebody asked "What is NASA?" I think Mahaloians would be best to provide a link to a NASA page explaining rather then a Wikipedia page explaining.
Wikipedia is a great source I agree, I personally feel it should not be your ONLY source.
For example, if somebody asked "What is NASA?" I think Mahaloians would be best to provide a link to a NASA page explaining rather then a Wikipedia page explaining.
Wikipedia is a great source I agree, I personally feel it should not be your ONLY source.
Although I agree with jeffhoard that Wikipedia isn't the best source, I will vote for it if the answer is dead simple, or if citing it provides the best 140 character response (like the NASA example). It's also better than no source at all!
I find Wikipedia helpful - it has some information which is correct and is helpful. However, it is easily possible to get information of Wikipedia and insert it into an answer - so I believe that if you are going to use Wikipedia first of all you must put it into your own words and not just copy and paste. (Of course, you can quote).
However, why not look at some of the sources Wikipedia has at the bottom of the page. You could use these as sources of information as Wikipedia uses these sources to write articles. So putting in relevant sources which make up the article should be used.
However, why not look at some of the sources Wikipedia has at the bottom of the page. You could use these as sources of information as Wikipedia uses these sources to write articles. So putting in relevant sources which make up the article should be used.
No it should not. Its a good way of getting alot of background info and stats about the subject though.
Admittedly, I have a bias in answering because of my background, but Wikipedia should never be the sole source for an answer. The articles change, information comes and goes, and there is no way to vouch for its accuracy. Having said that, many of its articles are a good place to start looking for answers, using the citations WP offers.
Then again, as with anything, there should never be a single source for any answer.
Then again, as with anything, there should never be a single source for any answer.
I try to cite multiple sources if I include Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Anyone can edit, or contribute to, Wiki pages, which isn't always a good thing. I'm happy to cite Wikipedia when we're talking about "basic" things, like a musician's discography, but I'd rather not rely exclusively on Wikipedia for "important" information (health, for example).
The above paragraph does not, however, include Wikipedia's sources, which are listed at the bottom of the page. I'm happy to use Wikipedia to find those sources, then see what they're about for myself.
Also: Wikipedia is NOT a widely-accepted research-paper source. At my university, the consequences of citing Wikipedia in a research paper range from points deductions to failing that assignment. Maybe some junior-high or high-school teachers allow Wikipedia references, and I'm sure that some colleges/universities and profs don't mind, but I've yet to meet a professor at either of my colleges who allows Wikipedia references.
The above paragraph does not, however, include Wikipedia's sources, which are listed at the bottom of the page. I'm happy to use Wikipedia to find those sources, then see what they're about for myself.
Also: Wikipedia is NOT a widely-accepted research-paper source. At my university, the consequences of citing Wikipedia in a research paper range from points deductions to failing that assignment. Maybe some junior-high or high-school teachers allow Wikipedia references, and I'm sure that some colleges/universities and profs don't mind, but I've yet to meet a professor at either of my colleges who allows Wikipedia references.
voted helpful: daigakuinsei, jeffhoard
I partially agree with @easyeboy that there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia itself (at least in general), but there's a problem with using it as the ONLY source. If people are using Twitter or a Mahalo account to ask questions here, they certainly know what Wikipedia is and how to find articles there, so just copying and pasting a Wikipedia paragraph is out of place and sometimes even insulting.
Plus, in some cases Wikipedia articles are not totally accurate(1) or updated. I think if someone is going to use Wikipedia as a the only source, at least s/he has to
By the way, I also think that the Mahalo team should send friendly (and private) reminders and hints to those users who are not giving good answers, something like "How to give a better answer", "How to give the best answer" or "Ways to get more tips". We all make mistakes.
Plus, in some cases Wikipedia articles are not totally accurate(1) or updated. I think if someone is going to use Wikipedia as a the only source, at least s/he has to
- Check the article's sources
- Interpret the article to make it more accessible or appropriate for the question
- At least rewrite, so it's not the same content
- Add images, graphs or useful videos from other places, so it's not the only source of information (even if it is the only written source)
By the way, I also think that the Mahalo team should send friendly (and private) reminders and hints to those users who are not giving good answers, something like "How to give a better answer", "How to give the best answer" or "Ways to get more tips". We all make mistakes.
tags: wikipedia
voted helpful: jeffhoard
I don't think that sources matter, as long as answers produced are accurate.
It doesn't matter if Wikipedia is being often re-edited, and information changed, or that articles it contains are not necessarily written by an "expert" on a topic. It is YOU, the answerer, who suppose to know the facts, and should be able to evaluate information provided by Wikipedia, or any other source, for that matter.
Therefore, if Wikipedia is wrong on a certain point, and you know that, then you won't cite Wikipedia, but will look for a better source instead.
When somebody does an extra effort to consult and cite various sources, that's always a plus, and it should be encouraged. I certainly take it into account when casting my vote for Best Answer.
Nevertheless, answers based solely on Wikipedia should not be disqualified, or in any way discriminated, as long as they are factually correct answers to a given question.
It doesn't matter if Wikipedia is being often re-edited, and information changed, or that articles it contains are not necessarily written by an "expert" on a topic. It is YOU, the answerer, who suppose to know the facts, and should be able to evaluate information provided by Wikipedia, or any other source, for that matter.
Therefore, if Wikipedia is wrong on a certain point, and you know that, then you won't cite Wikipedia, but will look for a better source instead.
When somebody does an extra effort to consult and cite various sources, that's always a plus, and it should be encouraged. I certainly take it into account when casting my vote for Best Answer.
Nevertheless, answers based solely on Wikipedia should not be disqualified, or in any way discriminated, as long as they are factually correct answers to a given question.
Should Wikipedia be your only source for an answer? no.
But we shouldn't punish "those users" for using wiki.
I personally feel a little "weird" using wiki as "the source" in anything.
But as people have said in this discussion, it can be a decent base to start your research that you can branch out from.
As you said Jeff, if you find people just cutin' and pastin' without puttin' their own 2 cents in, it might be nice to nudge them a little in another direction. People can be prone to habit and only need other options given to see a bigger picture out there!
http://www.nataliedee.com/101407/your-one-stop-research-stop.jpg
But we shouldn't punish "those users" for using wiki.
I personally feel a little "weird" using wiki as "the source" in anything.
But as people have said in this discussion, it can be a decent base to start your research that you can branch out from.
As you said Jeff, if you find people just cutin' and pastin' without puttin' their own 2 cents in, it might be nice to nudge them a little in another direction. People can be prone to habit and only need other options given to see a bigger picture out there!
By only source do you mean "the only source one cites when answering multiple questions" or "the only source cited for an individual question"?
As long as the answer is correct, then I don't see that it matters much if wikipedia is used from time to time, but I would frown on using it for every single answer.
All citations are from human sources and all humans are fallible, regardless of the letters that appear after their names.
As long as the answer is correct, then I don't see that it matters much if wikipedia is used from time to time, but I would frown on using it for every single answer.
All citations are from human sources and all humans are fallible, regardless of the letters that appear after their names.
Goodness no, Wikipedia is not a primary source and any information found there must be viewed with suspicion as it generally can't be sourced to the person who added it. It's great for 25 cent questions and fast facts but should always be checked with another source. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to cite a collaborating source but it does mean you should check.
Personally I find Wikipedia to be very helpful and I use it very often when I am trying to learn about something or get some quick information. I find their format very easy to read and navigate. It's true, since people can edit it, it is not always 100% accurate, but for the most part it is a reliable source of information.
Wikipedia is no doubt, a reliable source. In fact, as I'm sure most of you know, some believe it to be more reliable than Britannica. But that being said, answers should be more comprehensive than just an encyclopedia listing. Show that you're an expert in the area of the question and that you've done your research using a wide spectrum of sources. Those are the answers that will win tips.
I think it depends on the question, and what sources could be available to answer it. There are certain types of questions where I don't have a problem with Wikipedia being the only source. Some of them are:
1) Simple, non-controversial, factual questions. If the quesion is what NASA stands for, I don't mind if Wikipedia is the only source cited. Citing NASA itself would be better though.
2) Very specialised fannish and geekish topics, where there is no real authoritative source out there, and much info only exists on user generated sites on some kind. Got a question about Star Trek or Doctor Who? Often the only sites that may have the answer at all are all Wikis, and Wikipedia is as credible as any other source.
3) On a Twitter question, if I'm trying to get the source into the tweeted answer, and the Wikipedia article is good one, I might choose to include that only.
There might be other cases as well that I can't remember right now.
However those are the exceptions to the rule. In general, Wikipedia shouldn't be the sole source cited. Normally you'll want to confirm its validity, perhaps by looking at its own cited sources, perhaps by seeking other sources entirely. In that case, cite the other sources you looked at alongside the Wikipedia entry, and you've done what was needed.
1) Simple, non-controversial, factual questions. If the quesion is what NASA stands for, I don't mind if Wikipedia is the only source cited. Citing NASA itself would be better though.
2) Very specialised fannish and geekish topics, where there is no real authoritative source out there, and much info only exists on user generated sites on some kind. Got a question about Star Trek or Doctor Who? Often the only sites that may have the answer at all are all Wikis, and Wikipedia is as credible as any other source.
3) On a Twitter question, if I'm trying to get the source into the tweeted answer, and the Wikipedia article is good one, I might choose to include that only.
There might be other cases as well that I can't remember right now.
However those are the exceptions to the rule. In general, Wikipedia shouldn't be the sole source cited. Normally you'll want to confirm its validity, perhaps by looking at its own cited sources, perhaps by seeking other sources entirely. In that case, cite the other sources you looked at alongside the Wikipedia entry, and you've done what was needed.
tags: wikipedia
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
or maybe here
http://features.csmonitor.com/connectingthedots/2009/03/31/goodbye-encarta-a-cautionary-tale-for-newspapers/
Nice. :)